Defense Struggles

[4skers89]

3 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

I do think this is part of it.  Even when we do blitz, it's rarely effective.  I'm not sure where all the blame lies on that but that's the way it is.

Watching other teams that blitz well I notice the blitzer has a clear lane to the QB and it isn't by chance.  The DL easily creates those lanes by occupying multiple OL.  The D-lineman doesn't have to move O-linemen.  He simply has to first engage the O-linemen closest to the lane and then push away from the lane where another O-linemen may also engage him.  The O-linemen closest to the lane now has his body turned away from the lane slightly so even if he sees the blitzer it's almost impossible for him to disengage and pick up the blitzer.  I believe that is what I'm seeing.  Rarely does the first O-linemen sniff out what is going on, passes off the DL and picks up the blitzer.  I want to rewatch the OSU-Wiscy game because they got to Fields 4 or 5 times and I don't think any were by linemen so probably blitzing linebackers.  When Wiscy moved to the 3-4 their defense ranking went up and they mastered blitzing from day one.

 

Our blitzers are easily blocked either by an O-linemen or the backside of our D-linemen.  It's frustratingly comical.  Either there isn't proper coordination between the DL and linebackers OR the DL simply aren't doing their job OR the linebackers are running to the wrong place OR our coaches don't know what they are doing.  A blitz that doesn't get home is a dangerous waste so Chin probably feels it better to use them in pass coverage or stay home so they can watch the QB run past them.  Given that it took half a season to figure out how to snap the football I wouldn't expect us to be good at blitzing for another couple of seasons.  Meanwhile it's probably hurting our OL preparation.  Our OL think they are doing a swell job double teaming a DL completely oblivious to the blitzing linebacker running past them.

[HUSKER 37]

On 10/26/2019 at 9:54 PM, HUSKER 37 said:

 

Isn't this the type of Defense Frost wants? Geared towards getting our Offense more plays?  Hopefully by getting more turnovers, but assuming we can outscore them.

 

17 hours ago, Danimal said:

 

IMO that philosophy needs to go out the window with a chunk of our defensive staff. Ohio State is headed to the playoffs because they're nails on both sides of the ball. We won a national championship because he had a defense that allowed us to beat a top10 KSU squad with our walk-on qb. We play against well-coached teams in a quality con with several top defenses. We shouldn't count on getting turnovers and our O lighting up the scoreboard every week. To be a top team we need a top defense, more than just complimenting our offense. 

   

   It seemed to permeate through the Pac12...and then somewhat in the Big12...I remember worrying about Frost still believing in this while at UCF, especially when he brought Chin with him here...Maybe Chin is one of the few ''patsies'' that would go along with this doomed to fail experiment..

 

I sometimes even wondered if Callihan had a similar belief the way he seemed to hog most of the higher rated recruits for Offense and kept Cosgrove around.

[Mavric]

11 hours ago, 4skers89 said:

Watching other teams that blitz well I notice the blitzer has a clear lane to the QB and it isn't by chance.  The DL easily creates those lanes by occupying multiple OL.  The D-lineman doesn't have to move O-linemen.  He simply has to first engage the O-linemen closest to the lane and then push away from the lane where another O-linemen may also engage him.  The O-linemen closest to the lane now has his body turned away from the lane slightly so even if he sees the blitzer it's almost impossible for him to disengage and pick up the blitzer.  I believe that is what I'm seeing.  Rarely does the first O-linemen sniff out what is going on, passes off the DL and picks up the blitzer.  I want to rewatch the OSU-Wiscy game because they got to Fields 4 or 5 times and I don't think any were by linemen so probably blitzing linebackers.  When Wiscy moved to the 3-4 their defense ranking went up and they mastered blitzing from day one.

 

Our blitzers are easily blocked either by an O-linemen or the backside of our D-linemen.  It's frustratingly comical.  Either there isn't proper coordination between the DL and linebackers OR the DL simply aren't doing their job OR the linebackers are running to the wrong place OR our coaches don't know what they are doing.  A blitz that doesn't get home is a dangerous waste so Chin probably feels it better to use them in pass coverage or stay home so they can watch the QB run past them.  Given that it took half a season to figure out how to snap the football I wouldn't expect us to be good at blitzing for another couple of seasons.  Meanwhile it's probably hurting our OL preparation.  Our OL think they are doing a swell job double teaming a DL completely oblivious to the blitzing linebacker running past them.

 

Yeah, that's pretty much what I see as well.

 

Same boat: not sure if they aren't designed well, linemen are sliding to get the OL out of their lanes, DL just isn't good enough to draw enough attention or what the deal is.

[BigRedBuster]

I have no problem with the quote in this tweet. 
 

 

[ActualCornHusker]

Poor LB play has just killed this defense. They over-run the cutback lanes when trying to fit the run, and the only one fast enough to cover anyone in the back end is Domann, and he got tore up by Indiana's receiver. I don't know enough about what the players are coached to do, but Minn and Indiana both picked on our LBs all game and had great success. 

[Undone]

8 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

Poor LB play has just killed this defense. They over-run the cutback lanes when trying to fit the run, and the only one fast enough to cover anyone in the back end is Domann, and he got tore up by Indiana's receiver. I don't know enough about what the players are coached to do, but Minn and Indiana both picked on our LBs all game and had great success. 

 

Good post. I'd only add that I think Tannor has good speed & quickness and will fit this scheme very well...as long as his coaching doesn't suck.

[ActualCornHusker]

Just now, Undone said:

 

Good post. I'd only add that I think Tannor has good speed & quickness and will fit this scheme very well...as long as his coaching doesn't suck.

 

I know Frost is high on him. I haven't seen a ton from him up to this point. I think he still needs to add some weight, and obviously needs a lot of skill development on the field

[Mavric]

1 minute ago, Undone said:

Good post. I'd only add that I think Tannor has good speed & quickness and will fit this scheme very well...as long as his coaching doesn't suck.

 

Honestly, Tannor has been a pretty big disappointment.  A four-star, Georgia-commit who we ended up getting seemed like a difference-maker.  But so far there really hasn't been anything.

 

And I'm not really sure about his quickness either.  Indiana's QB was able to juke him so badly that he didn't get withing three yards of him on Saturday.

[Undone]

1 minute ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

I know Frost is high on him. I haven't seen a ton from him up to this point. I think he still needs to add some weight, and obviously needs a lot of skill development on the field

 

Yeah. I think he's even more athletic than Domann, honestly.

[SFW]

On 10/29/2019 at 2:33 AM, HUSKER 37 said:

 

   

   It seemed to permeate through the Pac12...and then somewhat in the Big12...I remember worrying about Frost still believing in this while at UCF, especially when he brought Chin with him here...Maybe Chin is one of the few ''patsies'' that would go along with this doomed to fail experiment..

 

I sometimes even wondered if Callihan had a similar belief the way he seemed to hog most of the higher rated recruits for Offense and kept Cosgrove around.

You mean like

 

Suh

Bowman

Gomes

Compton

Denard

Amukamara

Crick

Dillard

 

Got it.

[Mavric]

 

[Mavric]

For whatever reason, we've really struggles here.  Being just a little better here would make a lot of difference overall.  

 

Still showing improvement but not much.

 

 

[Undone]

1 hour ago, Mavric said:

 

 

I'm interested in a real discussion on this.

 

So when our base four of Davis/Daniels/Davis/Davis can't get pressure on 3rd & longs for an entire 2.5 quarters, is nothing on Chinander then? He doesn't deserve any heat for not changing it up and bringing the house on some of those plays to try something different?

 

The stats that McClintock puts out there are important to a degree. But also, we still have yet to play four conference games. If we finish 5-7 or 6-6 and our final defensive stats show that we "improved 7% from last year" I can fairly confidently say that very few savvy football fans are going to take much comfort in that.

[Husker in WI]

1 minute ago, Undone said:

 

I'm interested in a real discussion on this and not to just throw emotional one-liners out there.

 

So when our base four of Davis/Daniels/Davis/Davis can't get pressure on 3rd & longs for an entire 2.5 quarters, is nothing on Chinander then? He doesn't deserve any heat for not changing it up and bringing the house on some of those plays to try something different?

 

The stats the McClintock puts out there are important to a degree. But also, we still have yet to play four conference games. If we finish 5-7 or 6-6 and our final defensive stats show that we "improved 7% from last year" I can fairly confidently say that very few savvy football fans are going to take much comfort in that.

 

I do think the lack of pressure is at some point on Chinander. The reason I'm not too up in arms about it yet is who else do we have? We've seen more Nelson, and teams know how to exploit him. I am surprised we don't see more Tannor. Beyond that, I don't find it hard to believe that is our best pass rush group and they're just not good enough.

 

Frost mentioned in his post game if they see we're bringing heat and pick it up that puts the secondary in an even worse position, so I think the coaches have decided to go lower risk and not blitz as much. Gives up a lot of 3rd downs, but sometimes the coverage is good enough. And it doesn't give up the 60 yard TD because we were in man. I don't know if that's a Chinander defense call, or a Frost game management call. It does seem like the staff have decided against bringing extra guys, and that's fair to criticize. It's also possible if he did bring the house more we'd be complaining about the big plays when the blitz doesn't get home.

[Mavric]

2 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

I'm interested in a real discussion on this.

 

So when our base four of Davis/Daniels/Davis/Davis can't get pressure on 3rd & longs for an entire 2.5 quarters, is nothing on Chinander then? He doesn't deserve any heat for not changing it up and bringing the house on some of those plays to try something different?

 

The stats that McClintock puts out there are important to a degree. But also, we still have yet to play four conference games. If we finish 5-7 or 6-6 and our final defensive stats show that we "improved 7% from last year" I can fairly confidently say that very few savvy football fans are going to take much comfort in that.

 

I think you are in way to big of hurry to demand an exact answer.  It's not either extreme - I don't think anyone would say Chinander doesn't deserve any blame but I think it pretty knee-jerky for people to claim that he's terrible and should be fired.

 

7% isn't great but it's still headed the right direction.  It's significantly more than that compared to two years ago.  And there are a bunch of mitigating factors in play - a lot of the guys on the field were recruited to play in a 4-3 (Davis, Davis, Davis, Stille, Barry, Honas, Miller, etc.), we're missing huge chucks of two straight recruiting classes and how many different coaches and schemes the upper-classmen have had to adjust to.  Maybe none of that turns out to be the problem.  But I don't think it can just be thrown out at this point.